The word "straight"

[which doctor]

Do you think that using the word "straight" to describe one's sexuality is homophobic? I do.

It implys that being "straight" is normal. The word "straight" usually implies that something is normal, regardless to what is being referenced.

Adjective

straight (comparative: straighter, superlative: straightest)

1. Not crooked or bent; having a constant direction throughout its length.

a straight line.

2. Strictly along political lines.

He always votes a straight ticket.

3. Direct, truthful, frank.

a straight answer.

4. As it should be.

Everything is straight now.

5. Undiluted.

straight whiskey.

6. Having all cylinders in a single row. (referring to an internal combustion engine)

a straight six.

I bolded that words that imply straight as being normal, and the right thing to do.

Who do you think? Is using straight to describe a heterosexual a homopobic term?

[Black Dagger]

I'm not sure if it is homophobic per se - as its usage although linguistically dubious is not soley to denigrate, insult queers or conversely to elevate heterosexuals. So though i strongly dislike its usage to refer to heterosexuality for the reasons you stated, i do not think it is strictly homophobic, as much as it is perhaps 'insensitive' - not sure if that is the word im looking for but i'll go with it for now :P

I prefer the term, to use words like heterosexual or hetero, or if i want to wind someone up or mock 'gays' type terminology, i might say 'straights' or 'breeders' hehe :P

[TheGreatOne]

Being heterosexual is normal, just as being homosexual is abnormal among humans, considering that only an estimated 1-2% of the total human population is homosexual. However, that does not imply that anything is wrong with it.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by TheGreatOne@Aug 16 2006, 02:53 AM
Being heterosexual is normal, just as being homosexual is abnormal among humans, considering that only an estimated 1-2% of the total human population is homosexual. However, that does not imply that anything is wrong with it.

Actually the common estimation is 10%, and that does not include bi people. But regardless of numbers, the 'normal' vs. 'abnormal' dichotomy you're trying to establish is completely false.

What do you really mean when you say normal?

Merely that heterosexuality is more common?

[Cryotank Screams]

There is no such thing as Sexuality. Is it present in nature? No. Attraction is attraction, beauty is beauty, love is love. The whole system of heterosexuality, bi-sexuality, and homosexuality are just idiotic adjectives.

The term straight however is counter-nature in the sense that it tries to impose somekind of normality on a natural occurrence, so in attempts to give validity and comfort to an ideologically stricken and confused masses.

[TheGreatOne]

I hardly consider that a rant, and I consider it homophobic even less. Please explain to me how that is, in any way, homophobic?

As far as it's relevance goes, it is relevant because the original post seemed to by denying that homosexuality is abnormal among humans.

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 15 2006, 04:55 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 15 2006, 04:55 PM)

TheGreatOne

@Aug 16 2006, 02:53 AM
Being heterosexual is normal, just as being homosexual is abnormal among humans, considering that only an estimated 1-2% of the total human population is homosexual. However, that does not imply that anything is wrong with it.

Actually the common estimation is 10%, and that does not include bi people. But regardless of numbers, the 'normal' vs. 'abnormal' dichotomy you're trying to establish is completely false.

What do you really mean when you say normal?

Merely that heterosexuality is more common? [/b]

The 10% estimation is bullshit. It was made in the 1930's and 1940's by a single man who gathered much of his evidence from known gay communities. It was by no means a legitimate poll, but due to the massive amount that he wrote on the subject, no one bothered to question it for many years, and the 10% stuck.

When I say normal, I mean that it is more common and I also mean that that is how nature intended for us to be. After all, a homosexual will be far less likely to pass along his genes than a heterosexual would, and so most genes which would cause a person to be gay would not last very long in the gene pool. This, of course, does not mean that I have any problem whatsoever with homosexuals.

[Black Dagger]

Please answer my question,

What do you really mean when you say normal?

Merely that heterosexuality is more common?

[which doctor]

Saying heterosexuality is normal is like saying having an appreciation for the color green is normal.

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood@Aug 15 2006, 05:08 PM
Saying heterosexuality is normal is like saying having an appreciation for the color green is normal.

That is only true if 98 to 99 out of 100 people had an appreciation for the color green.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by TheGreatOne+--> (TheGreatOne) I also mean that that is how nature intended for us to be. [/b]

If homosexuality is not natural than it would not exist in the natural world, which it does, in a great variety of animal species, your point argument has no basis in scientific fact.

TheGreatOne

This, of course, does not mean that I have any problem whatsoever with homosexuals.

Oh, of course! You are merely suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural, and that i understand perfectly

[TC]

Oppression is about economic and legal discrimination, prejudice including homophobia, racism and sexism is about what people actually think and mean and intend not what common terms they use. Only liberals obsess over finding the most politically appropriate language because it means they don't have to do deal with the real oppression and prejudice they're guilty of.

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 15 2006, 04:55 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 15 2006, 04:55 PM)

TheGreatOne

@Aug 16 2006, 02:53 AM
Being heterosexual is normal, just as being homosexual is abnormal among humans, considering that only an estimated 1-2% of the total human population is homosexual. However, that does not imply that anything is wrong with it.

Actually the common estimation is 10%, and that does not include bi people. But regardless of numbers, the 'normal' vs. 'abnormal' dichotomy you're trying to establish is completely false.

[/b]

Actually no. The 10% thing was a misquote of the Kinsey Reports (the figure should actually be 8% from the Kinsey reports) which have been shown to be profoundly methodologically and statistically flawed and i know i've already addressed this before.


Almost all other data suggests between 1% and 3% including bisexuals.


Canadian statistics surveying millions of people, for instance, show 1.3% of canadian men and 0.7% of canadian women are homosexual, and 0.6% of canadian men are bisexual, 0.9% of canadian women are bisexual.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure if it is homophobic per se - as its usage although linguistically dubious is not soley to denigrate, insult queers or conversely to elevate heterosexuals.

Thats ridiculous you could more easily claim that "gay" elevates homosexuals by implying that they're happy and cheerful...considerably more positive connotations than 'straight.'

or if i want to wind someone up or mock 'gays' type terminology,

What, you're pissed that the mean 'gays' have term that doesn't properly include you, you don't think they have the right to political self-determination?

i might say 'straights' or 'breeders' hehe

"Breeders" is a reactionary and prejudicial term that reduces heterosexual sex to reproduction rather than pleasure and makes an obvious allusion to farm animals...aren't you normally hyper-sensitive about oppressive language? I mean i'm not, but comming from someone who jumps at this stuff you shouldnt' be using the term.

[ZeroPain]

I hate when people say "queer", it causes me to wince every time I hear it.

"Breeders" is a reactionary and prejudicial term that reduces heterosexual sex to reproduction rather than pleasure and makes an obvious allusion to farm animals...aren't you normally hyper-sensitive about oppressive language? I mean i'm not, but comming from someone who jumps at this stuff you shouldnt' be using the term.

Its also a xenophobic term for an immigrant who brings a child with them....

[Black Dagger]

Actually no. The 10% thing was a misquote of the Kinsey Reports (the figure should actually be 8% from the Kinsey reports) which have been shown to be profoundly methodologically and statistically flawed and i know i've already addressed this before.


Almost all other data suggests between 1% and 3% including bisexuals.


Canadian statistics surveying millions of people, for instance, show 1.3% of canadian men and 0.7% of canadian women are homosexual, and 0.6% of canadian men are bisexual, 0.9% of canadian women are bisexual.

Nice research, but the 'stats' don't really bother me too much, accurate studies of human sexuality are notoriously hard to undertake for a number of reasons, so if you wanna say that 10% is bollocks go ahead i suppose.

thats ridiculous you could more easily claim that "gay" elevates homosexuals by implying that they're happy and cheerful...considerably more positive connotations than 'straight.'

I suppose you could do that, if you wanted to?

Originally posted by TC
What, you're pissed that the mean 'gays' have term that doesn't properly include you, you don't think they have the right to political self-determination?

Hahaha

You're so out-of-touch, dare i say, straight up deluded, seriously, your ability to completely miss the mark, over and over again, never ceases to amaze me.

Wait a sec....

hahaha

Anyway, if you spent as much time thinking about your arguments as you did crafting personal attacks replying to your posts might be a lot more intellectually challenging for me.

When i said 'gays' type terminology, i was referring to the way many heterosexual people says 'gay', as in 'i really hate flamboyant gays', the 's' irks me, so somtimes i say 'straights' when making sarcastic retorts.

"Breeders" is a reactionary and prejudicial term that reduces heterosexual sex to reproduction rather than pleasure and makes an obvious allusion to farm animals...aren't you normally hyper-sensitive about oppressive language? I mean i'm not, but comming from someone who jumps at this stuff you shouldnt' be using the term.

Another victory for personal hatred over basic comprehension!

I suppose you missed part where i said 'if i want to wind up or mock people use 'gays' type terminology, i.e. if im talkin to homophobes who use stupid terminology, i will to mock their stupidity, use terms like 'breeder', and then i suppose you also missed the 'hehe' and the ' :P ' in that sentence as well?

Get off my fucking back already!

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 15 2006, 05:47 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 15 2006, 05:47 PM)

Originally posted by TheGreatOne@
I also mean that that is how nature intended for us to be.

If homosexuality is not natural than it would not exist in the natural world, which it does, in a great variety of animal species, your point argument has no basis in scientific fact.

TheGreatOne

This, of course, does not mean that I have any problem whatsoever with homosexuals.

Oh, of course! You are merely suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural, and that i understand perfectly [/b]

Wrong. I never said it was unnatural. I said that it is not how we are meant to be (or rather how evolution intended for us to be). Abnormalities are natural occurences.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by TheGreatOne
I said that it is not how we are meant to be (or rather how evolution intended for us to be). Abnormalities are natural occurences.

Evolution and 'nature' are not conscious beings, they do not have intentions. Homosexuality exists in human and non-human animal species, if we are not 'meant' to be homosexual - and apparently 'nature' itself declares this - why on earth is homosexuality a common feature of animal species?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by TheGreatOne+Aug 15 2006, 06:05 PM--> (TheGreatOne @ Aug 15 2006, 06:05 PM)

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 15 2006, 05:47 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 15 2006, 05:47 PM)

TheGreatOne

@
I also mean that that is how nature intended for us to be.

If homosexuality is not natural than it would not exist in the natural world, which it does, in a great variety of animal species, your point argument has no basis in scientific fact.

TheGreatOne

This, of course, does not mean that I have any problem whatsoever with homosexuals.

Oh, of course! You are merely suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural, and that i understand perfectly [/b]

Wrong. I never said it was unnatural. I said that it is not how we are meant to be (or rather how evolution intended for us to be). Abnormalities are natural occurences. [/b]

If breeding is your main argument for "heterosexuality," being the "norm," then you are imploring a fool's argument, I recommend the book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley.

[TheGreatOne]

I apologize. Some people here must never have heard of personification.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by TheGreatOne@Aug 16 2006, 05:17 AM
I apologize. Some people here must never have heard of personification.

Are you going to reply to my post? I don't want an apology, i want an answer